MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027371808 · doi:10.1177/1090198107303309

Are We There Yet? An Examination of Online Tailored Health Communication

2007· article· en· W2027371808 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education & Behavior · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth communicationThe InternetInternet privacyWorld Wide WebHealth informationHealth promotionPublic healthComputer scienceHealth careMedicinePsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasingly, the Internet is playing an important role in consumer health and patient-provider communication. Seventy-three percent of American adults are now online, and 79% have searched for health information on the Internet. This study provides a baseline understanding of the extent to which health consumers are able to find tailored communication online. It describes the current behavioral focus, the channels being used to deliver the tailored content, and the level of tailoring in online-tailored communication. A content analysis of 497 health Web sites found few examples of personalized, targeted, or tailored health sites freely available online. Tailored content was provided in 13 Web sites, although 15 collected individual data. More health risk assessment (HRA) sites included tailored feedback than other topics. The patterns that emerged from the analysis demonstrate that online health users can access a number of Web sites with communication tailored to their needs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it